Martial arts are systems of codified practices and traditions of combat some of which were passed down in secrecy for many generations. It involves intellectual concepts as well as physical techniques and some martial arts are linked to many religious beliefs such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism or Shinto as well as philosophical systems/code of honor of the East. Having said that, a true martial artist is a custodian of that art and tradition.
Being capable still doesn't mean you have to do it. I am capable of shooting someone from three hundred meters away, that doesn't mean I'll ever do it.
We're kinda getting off the point here. You say that a person's morals have a bearing on their status as a martial artist, I say they don't. I don't think we'll be seeing eye to eye so its probably better if we agree to disagree
A martial artist is someone engaged in the practice and/or transmission of a codified approach to personal combat. That codified approach is invariably the product of a culture, and will often be transmitted using the terminology and conceptual framework of that culture. For better or worse, that often means that people take some of those cultural trappings as intrinsic facets of a martial art. When, really, it's just a part of that particular learning experience. The problem I have with this sort of myopic defining of terms is just that. We get in our heads that a "martial artist" meets certain criteria. And those criteria are quite often traced back to the source culture. And the upshot is twofold: 1) We foster a grossly romanticized (and, consequently, inaccurate) view of that culture and 2) we alienate cultures that have a different "take" on it. Take this example of empathy, for instance. We might value empathy in a modern society, in which the role of martial arts is no longer strictly military but instead civil self protection. Do you honestly think that empathy was first and foremost in the mind of a battlefield swordsman? I'm not really clear how you run someone through with a broadsword whilst empathising with them. I'm really not. Now, a contributing member of normal society, sure.
Martial arts was never strictly military. You don't understand it because you dont understand the philosophy behind it.
Military no. Combative yes. EDIT: NEVER military? That's debatable. Not ALWAYS military, I agree with. As for the part about understanding the philosophy behind it, which philosophy are you referring to? I've been involved in martial arts for 26 years. Which is a drop in the bucket compared with some people here, but I'm guessing still considerably longer than you. In fact, I'm going to wager you haven't been doing anything at all for 26 years. Now, that's not to say that you're wrong in your definition. We're disagreeing. Your definition doesn't synch up with mine. That doesn't mean I don't get it. Fact is that, years ago, I said exactly the things you're saying now. Most of us did. That doesn't make them fact. There's our personal belief system, but there's also historical actuality to take into consideration. The philosophies of Hinduism and Buddhism differ from Confucianism, Daoism, Shintoism, Western pragmatism, the mix of beliefs that inform traditional Filipino arts (my chosen field), etc. Brazilian malicia (from capoeira) differs significantly in its martial arts philosophy to Chinese wu de (martial virtue). There isn't one homogenous "martial arts philosophy" just as there isn't one source of martial arts. Stuart
Hi folks, nice little debate going on here, thought I'd stick my oar in As has already been mentioned, 'true' can be a very relative term for a thing, group of things or group of people (in this case, people). I like to make things simple for myself, so that in the early hours of the morning when I can't sleep (now for instance), my brain doesn't dribble out my ears and I make a moron of myself gabbing on MA forums. So for me I like to look at the meaning behind the words. I'll be using quotes from the oxford dictionary here too. Martial: War: And Art: So to put quite simply for my currently poor functioning grey matter; a true martial artist is someone who has a skill at a specific thing that they practice in relation to fighting or war. War in this context can be a state of competition or hostility between different people or groups. I know I'm just looking at this from a very abstract view and I do have other, more esoteric opinions, but for now this seems the most relevant. Any thoughts?
to ap Oweyn: You're absolutely correct I haven't been doing anything for 26 years, considering im almost 21. Also I never said martial arts were never used in military, my own martial art was used as a military art, and I believe it still may be in Korea. What I was saying is that It was never created(in general because their are styles that are for killing and killing alone) strickly for military. In fact I believe earlier in this topic someone even said that martial arts were created by watching animals to give people a way to protect themselves from other animals and to hunt(that's not exact wording.) As for not understanding the philosophy behind it I was talking strictly about the swordsmen you used in your example. To Hyper_Shadow: if you're going to use that logic then we'd all have to go back to the very first post and reword everything. In fact, we'd have to begin to use Latin. Meanings changed over time.
The point of me using the current oxford dictionary was that it was current And I've just chosen to put my viewpoint in, it's as valid as anyone else's. But I think what I said was quite apt. A true martial artist is someone who has a skill at a specific thing that they practice in relation to fighting or war (in our context, this would relate to the various 'styles' we practice). War in this context can be a state of competition or hostility between different people or groups (for us, most part in these forums that would be MA competitions or even live street combat). Now my little esoteric spit. A true martial artist does have to fight. It's just as a 'true' martial artist you should have the mental, physical and even spiritual tools to pick your battles. These battles don't always have to be a bare bones scrap with someone else. Conflict exists in everyday life. It is conflict that forces change and ultimately the progression of the human race. However it is also conflict that is singularly responsible for all the atrocities that man causes and thus degrades us as a species. A true martial artist has to accept this reality. In all it's ugly monstrous glory they have to accept it and carry on carving a path for themselves, right through all conflict. We don't shy away from these things, we embrace them and we are made stronger for it.
So are you suggesting that you do understand the philosophy of the swordsman? Because if you're going to understand that philosophy in application, it seems to me that you would need to have taken a life with a sword. Now, I'm not suggesting that soldiers aren't soldiers unless they've shot someone. They are. But I think there's a fundamental shift in someone after they've seen that sort of action. And the same holds true for this swordsman philosophy you say I don't understand. I understand it in theory. I don't understand it in practice. And neither do you. Because we don't exist in a society where martial artists do that sort of thing anymore. Stuart
A bit late, but whenever someone brings up the "martial arts developed in Shaolin" line, I like to break out this little graph:
Because the first time I posted this somewhere, without the J word on it, someone asked what actually happened at year 0...
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LRIypcaIX4&feature=related"]YouTube- Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter (Trailer)[/ame] Because that dude had some sweet kung fu
